The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Frank G. RunyeonIn a historic verdict, an 11 member jury on Monday found Arab Bank
liable for knowingly providing financial services to Hamas - the first
time a financial institution has ever been held civilly liable for
supporting terrorism.

The Arab Bank trial took place in a
federal court in Brooklyn for the last five weeks and revisited some of
Hamas' worst terror attacks, including the August 2001 Sbarro suicide
bombing in Jerusalem killing or wounding 130 and a range of 24 horrid
terror attacks during the Second Intifada.

297 plaintiffs who were injured or are family members of those murdered
in the 24 terror attacks from 1998-2004 financed via Saudi Arabia and
Hezbollah’s al-Shahid Foundation sued the bank in 2004 for allowing
itself to be used as a conduit for the terror funds.

The 10 year history of intense legal battles, included trying to get the
bank's "secret" client documents located in Jordan, Lebanon and the
Palestinian areas.

The US Supreme Court has already weighed in once pretrial and may be
asked to weigh in again post-trial, while the US State, Justice and
Treasury Departments fought over whether the US government should accede
to Jordan's requests to for intervening in the case.

Jordan
told the US Supreme Court that Arab Bank is so crucial, that a billions
dollar judgment that tanks the bank could lead to economic and political
instability and devastation, possibly damaging crucial US-Jordan
counter-terror cooperation.

Commentators have written that if Arab Bank was held liable for being a
conduit for funds which eventually reached terrorists, the precedent
could shake the international banking system to its foundations as many
major banks may use their size and looking the other way to dabble in
such transactions.

The central question was whether the 11 member jury would find that Arab
Bank knew or should have known that its account holders were using it
to transfer "blood money" to Hamas for terror operations - or whether it
checked for suspicious transactions as best it could, and simply
imperfectly missed them.

On Thursday, during closing arguments, Plaintiffs’ attorney C. Tab
Turner told the jury they were in a very special situation: “a situation
that no jury in the history of this country has ever been in."

He continued, "Never has anyone sat on a case of finance terrorism, with issues like you have to decide in this case."

“You
have more power today to change the way that this world operates, the
world of banking operates, than anyone else on the face of the earth,”
said Turner.

Gary M. Osen, another plaintiffs' attorney
responded, saying, "The jury has found Arab Bank responsible for
knowingly supporting terrorism. It found Arab Bank complicit in the
deaths and grievous injuries inflicted on dozens of Americans."

He
added, "Every bank, every company and every government in the world now
has to decide whether it is willing to continue doing business with an
institution proven to have knowingly supported terrorism and proven to
have helped murder Americans.”

Responding, Arab Bank said that it
had "predicted that any proceeding conducted under the district court’s
improper sanctions, which the US government found to be ‘erroneous,’
would be nothing more than a show trial."

It added that, "Once
the Court eliminated the Bank’s defenses, permitted weeks of
inadmissible and inflammatory testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses, and
rejected the Supreme Court’s binding causation standard, the verdict
against the Bank was inevitable."

Further, the bank said,
“Taken together, the Court’s rulings excluded nearly all evidence about
banking and put Hamas on trial, but as Judge Weinstein found in
dismissing the related Gill case, ‘Hamas is not the defendant; the Bank
is.’"

The bank continued that it “believes it will ultimately
prevail in this case. The trial was infected by scores of errors, and
the Bank has very strong grounds for appeal" and will appeal to the US
federal appeals court.

During a trial lasting nearly six weeks, the jury was presented with
evidence showing that Arab Bank held accounts for multiple senior Hamas
leaders, including Hamas founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad
Yassin and current Hamas leaders Osama Hamdan and Ismail Haniyeh.

The
jury was also presented with evidence that Arab Bank transferred more
than $30 million dollars to Hamas-controlled institutions in the Gaza
Strip and West Bank, such as al-Mujama al-Islami (The Islamic Center of
Gaza) and al-Jam'iya al-Islamiya (The Islamic Society of Gaza).

Furthermore,
the Plaintiffs presented evidence that Arab Bank served as the conduit
between the Saudi Committee in Support of the Intifada Al Quds, a Saudi
charity established in October 2000, and the families of Hamas suicide
bombers, martyrs and prisoners.

According to an unclassified
U.S. State Department memorandum released after the jury began
deliberations, “In 2003, the United States provided evidence to Saudi
authorities that the Saudi al Quds Intifadah Committee (“Committee”)
founded in October 2000, was forwarding millions of dollars in funds to
the families of Palestinians engaged in terrorist activities, including
those of suicide bombers.”

“The timing of the State Department’s disclosure raises deeply troubling
questions,” said Plaintiffs’ trial counsel Michael Elsner, who
requested the records. “Obviously, the jury reached the same conclusion
about the Saudi payments in finding Arab Bank guilty for its support of
Hamas, but this last minute disclosure of this evidence six years after
we requested it and hours after the jury began its deliberations is
telling."

"We don’t expect the State Department to take sides in a
civil case, but by withholding critical evidence until the jury began
its deliberations, the State Department continues its unfortunate
pattern of siding with foreign interests against American victims of
terrorism," said Elsner. Yonah Jeremy Bob, Frank G. RunyeonSource: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Arab-Bank-found-liable-over-Hamas-attacks-US-jury-says-376094 Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by Majid RafizadehThere has been considerable pressure from the leftists and Democrats to include the Islamic Republic of Iran in the core coalition of Western allies that have joined to fight the Islamic State. The core coalition consists of Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark. Turkey, which is led by the Islamic Justice and Development Party of Recep Erdogan, has been notably less cooperative than expected.Some national and international outlets, along with policy analysts, are beating the drum that without the Islamic Republic defeating the Islamic State is impossible. As one pro-Iranian outlet asserted, “If Obama thinks he can fight the Islamic State group without Iran’s help, he’s mistaken.”This academic, naïve and immature argument – that the assistance of the Islamic Republic is needed to counteract the rise of an Islamic terrorist group – has been resurfacing repeatedly for almost a decade. This view falls right into the hands and interests of the Iranian regime. This argument comes from two camps: the first camp consist of those who desire to project the Islamic Republic’s power to be more than it actually is. The second camp of individuals present and reflect their minimal understanding and naïveté in comprehending the power structure of the Middle East, the power of the Islamic Republic, and its role in the Middle East.First of all, Iran’s military power in comparison to that of European countries and the core coalition is minimal. Exaggerating about the military power of the Islamic Republic and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps falls right into the hand of the Iranian regime and the mullahs.By doing so, the Islamic Republic has managed to project itself as the only option, regional power, and more fundamentally, partner of the West (specifically the United States) in defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria.Secondly, the security threat posed by ISIS has shifted the attention from Iran’s nuclear program, and this is what the Iranian regime is searching for. While Iran’s nuclear defiance used to command more attention in the Obama administration’s foreign policy agenda (and other members of the P5+1) when it comes to Iran, the geopolitical and security threat of ISIS has shifted priorities.More fundamentally, the Islamic Republic was the major reason behind the emergence and creation of the terrorist group the Islamic State. Iran’s military, financial, intelligence, advisory, and security support of the Assad government have been instrumental in keeping the Alawites in power. However, the Islamic Republic’s assistance has also caused the uprising to spiral into a full-fledged civil war and sectarian conflict. Iran’s support contributed further to the instability in the country.The Iranian and Syrian governments’ use of brutal force further radicalized and militarized the conflict. The Islamic Republic’s (and its proxy Hezbollah’s) involvement in the Syrian conflict ratcheted up the sectarian language as well, pitting the Sunnis, the Shias and Alawites against each other.This particular milieu provided the platform for Al-Qaeda affiliates and groups such as ISIS to develop, organize, recruit more members, and coordinate more efficiently.It goes without saying that from the beginning the Islamic Republic’s line for the Syrian uprising has been that Assad has been attacked by terrorists, Takfiris, or radical Sunni Islamist groups. The Syrian regime employed the same argument to legitimize its use of hard power and prevent foreign intervention as well.The Syrian regime, with the assistance of Iranian advisors, released several ISIS members and Salafists from prison in late 2011 and early 2012 in order to strengthen Damascus and Tehran’s argument that Assad has been a target of radical terrorist groups rather than a popular uprising. The ISIS recruitment significantly intensified during this time.At the beginning, the rise of such radical groups fell right into the interests of the Iranian and Syrian regime. The Islamic Republic and Syria were strategically successful at sending the West, and particularly the United States, a robust message that there is no alternative to Assad, and any military or foreign intervention would exacerbate the conflict.In addition, the elite Quds Forces, a branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, has gained significant power in Iraq and Syria since the rise of ISIS. The Iranian government no longer sees a need to hide their involvement of its troops on the ground in these countries. The growing role of the IRGC and Quds Forces is being justified by Iran’s claim that it is fighting ISIS. In addition, the United States sees no other option other than to turn a blind eye on the increasing role of Iranian forces.Militarily speaking, there is no need for the Islamic Republic to defeat the Islamic State. Ideologically and religiously speaking, the Iranian regime’s policies are not that different from the Islamic State when it comes to executions, amputations, stoning, suppressing women, persecuting minorities, destabilizing the region, among others. Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic does these acts in a more systematic way, and they are legalized under its Islamist and Shari’a law-based legislative, judiciary and executive systems.By requesting that the Islamic Republic assist in defeating the Islamic State, we will be playing right into their hands. The Iranian regime will project itself as the sole power in the Middle East and continue more assertively to pursue its regional hegemonic ambitions and nuclear objectives. Secondly, the West would be legitimizing and emboldening the authoritarian and Islamist regime of the mullahs. Third, the Iranian leaders will use the partnership with the West as well as the West’s request to join them as leverage in obtaining more concessions from the United States when it comes to nuclear talks. The Iranian regime will use this as a platform to maneuver more in the nuclear negotiations and paint the picture that it is an indispensable regional power.Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and scholar, is president of the International American Council and serves on the board of the Harvard International Review at Harvard University. Rafizadeh is also a senior fellow at the Nonviolence International Organization based in Washington, DC and is a member of the Gulf project at Columbia University. He can be reached at rafizadeh@fas.harvard.edu. Follow Rafizadeh at @majidrafizadeh.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/the-folly-of-inviting-iran-to-fight-isis/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

President
Obama and his fellow Democrats are scheming to use immigration and
housing policy to fulfill their dream to fundamentally transform America
forever.

Over a decade ago, two liberals-John Judis and Rus Teixeira-wrote a book, The Emerging Democratic Majority,
that predicted demographic changes would inevitably lead to a
Democratic lock on Congress and the White House. Their argument since
has been updated
by both of them and by others. Back in 2009, Teixeira wrote that “that
demographic and geographic "trends should take America down a very
different road than has been traveled in the last eight years. A new
progressive America is on the rise."

However, for a man who boasted of his plans to “fundamentally transform America” and change its “trajectory”
and has used Martin Luther King’s declaration of the “fierce urgency of
now” as a rallying cry, these changes are too glacial. After all, when
Treasury Secretary Geithner praised Barack Obama for a legacy of having
prevented the second Great Depression (sycophancy works with Obama)
Obama replied “That’s not enough for me”.
For a man declared to something akin to a God, what greater legacy can
there be then changing the demographics of America? His legacy will last
long after he left the office. Demography is destiny.

There has been much coverage of how the changing composition of the American electorate is boosting the prospects
for Democrats, but the policies adopted by President Obama and
supported by Harry Reid’s Senate are acting, as arsonists would say, as
accelerants.

There
are clues to this plan in the lax enforcement of our immigration laws,
the targeting of states and law-enforcement officials that are trying to
enforce those very laws, and the abuse of “prosecutorial discretion”
to hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards, as well as tax dollars, to
lawbreakers. One of his more potent and controversial actions was
President Obama’s use of “executive authority” in 2012 to enact the
Dream Act by fiat -- despite his profession just the year before that he
had no power to circumvent Congress in that way (for once, he was right
about the law). His order gave lawful permanent residency status and
work authorization to anyone who arrived in America illegally as a
minor, has been in this country for at least five years, has been in
America for at least five years, was in school or has graduated from
high school, or served in the military and was not yet 35 years old.
This was a Dream Act alright for Obama’s dream is to “punish his enemies” and crush the Republican Party.

Since
then, of course, his Open Borders policy has led to the much publicized
children’s crusade crossing America’s southern border, with very little
done to stop this invasion despite risks to our fiscal health
(exemplified by what immigration waves has done to California finances); our medical health and our safety
and our lives (as ISIS and other Islamists groups see the virtual
Bienvenidos Mat at America’s borders; the head of the immigration
workers union recently warned of this dangerous terror threat -- despite White House efforts to hide this danger.

U.S.
Border Patrol agents have apprehended at least 474 aliens from
terrorism-linked countries attempting to sneak into the country
illegally this year alone, according to a leaked document obtained by Breitbart Texas. As Barack Obama has made clear, he plans to declare amnesty by executive order once those annoying distractions known as elections are over in November. Democrats have recently voted to protect
his likely post-election amnesty order. Also on the docket before
Obama leaves office will be the granting of asylum for hundreds of
thousands of Muslims displaced by his own disastrous policies (Obama
already loosened the rules for asylum seekers who have terror
connections, despite the fact that others granted asylum have killed Americans). That policy has worked out so well for Europe, after all. Minneapolis has seen Somalis granted asylum become ISIS terrorists.

This
is not what most Americans want and a president, a decent one anyway,
would consider the views of his fellow Americans on such an important
matter. But as we have seen on climate change and Obamacare, for
example, Democrats don’t care to consult with the hoi polloi .

This will be one giant leap to transform the electoral map of America.

Despite
claims made by some activists that immigrants are “natural
Republicans,” this has been disproved by numerous studies. Illegal
immigrants (surprise!) vastly favor Democrats over Republicans. The second generation becomes natural Democrats in overwhelming numbers (see Why Hispanics Don’t Vote Republican
by the estimable Heather MacDonald). They favor Big Government policies
-- nationalized medical care, welfare and the other entitlement
programs -- by which Democrats create dependents and dependable
Democrats. Thus, fast-tracking them onto the path of citizenship and the
right to vote is a high priority for Democrats.

First
comes the immigration, legal and illegal; then comes amnesty; then
comes citizenship; and then comes immortal Democratic control. Call it
the Tinkers-to Evers-to Chance plan to control the destiny of America.
As Mark Krikorian
has repeatedly warned, Obama is transforming America through
immigration. There is an even more calculated policy being followed. To
see the impact look at a map:

(The colors in the map of the states represent the split of senators
in those states, not political leaning. Colorado is more purple than
Nevada at this point but has two Dem senators, Nevada 1 of each.)

The
influx into the south is changing the political alignment in southern
states. The South has been a bastion for Republicans for years but that
has made it a target and it is under assault. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the
New York Times recently wrote a column
reporting how immigration (“Latinos in Georgia, as in much of the
country, are the fastest growing minority”) is shifting the state
towards the blue spectrum (the GOP has a good shot of retaining a
Republican Senatorial seat in this cycle as but as the cliché goes, past
performance is no guarantee of future performance).

Attorney
General Eric Holder has been targeting southern states for years to
loosen voter identification and other anti-voter fraud measures.
Democrats are actively working to turn Texas blue
(after Obama’s re-election, Jeremy Bird, Obama’s campaign national
field director, started Battleground Texas, a grass-roots political
organization to make Texas competitive, a long-term effort to take root
perhaps by the 2020 presidential election,
wrote Amy Chozick in the New York Times). Skeptics may scoff but
California was once solidly Republican and now has Jerry Brown as
governor and Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as senators.Hence, as Stolberg wrote about Georgia, the Democratic Party is enjoying a “revival.” It may be slow but it is inexorable.

There
are other actions taken by the White House and its Democratic allies in
Congress to further control the destiny of America. For decades,
Democrats have bemoaned that Republicans have an advantage in the House
of Representatives since districts are based primarily on geography.
Since individual districts are spread out across states, more
conservative suburban, ex-urban and rural voters have more sway in
deciding the composition of the House. The Democrats have done their
best to redraw these lines when they have controlled state governments
to favor Democrats. Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their
voters rather than the democracy is supposed to work. Be that as it
may, these electoral puzzle pieces often look strange for a reason
(conspiracies can be complex). Illinois, Obama’s home state naturally enough-provides an illustration of how far-fetched gerrymandering can become

My
street is a microcosm of what happened when Democrats took control of
state government in 2010 and redrew the map. I live in the 10th
district of Illinois, once held by Republicans Mark Kirk and his
successor (once Kirk was elected to the Senate) Bob Dold. After 2010,
the seat was won – barely -- by a Democrat. I was talking with a
neighbor from across the street about the upcoming midterm election in
the district, one of the most competitive in the nation (Bob Dold is
running to retake the seat). I was surprised when he said he was not in
the 10th anymore (he finds himself, horror of horrors,
represented by a left-wing Democrat who has a solid core of support in
other carefully drawn areas of her district, the 9th).
When I did a deep dive to drill down on the map, I not only discovered
that I escaped the same fate by just a few yards but that neighbors on the same side of the street just a few houses up were
also in a different district. If only Democrats would focus such
attention on fiscal and security concerns rather than their campaigns
and themselves.

However,
redrawing congressional district maps is only the most obvious strategy
(and one, that in all fairness, has also been practiced by
Republicans). Could there be a stealth plan to move Democrats into
Republican-held House districts to turn them blue or at least purple?

Westchester
County in New York can be used as another microcosm to reveal changes
that are afoot across America that have somehow escaped the media’s
attention.

George Picard of American Thinker wrote years ago about events transpiring in that well-off community:

The
Obama team also has sent social engineers to Westchester County, New
York, to pressure the community to settle a lawsuit brought by liberal
activists over "affordable" housing. The deal requires Westchester
County to spend $50 million dollars to build hundreds of affordable
units and market them aggressively to minorities. As the Wall Street Journal noted, "the lawsuit was clearly a solution in search of a problem."The
Housing and Urban Development agency went on war footing. Deputy
Secretary Ron Sims declared that "there was a significant amount of
racial segregation" in Westchester. This is false. The county's
population of minorities already mirrors that of the nation's population
as a whole. Minorities do cluster in certain communities and are
relatively absent in the higher-income areas, such as Scarsdale. This
replicates the history of social migration in America, whether by Jews,
Italians, or African-Americans themselves. As incomes increase, people
move to nicer areas. In fact, even in the wealthier areas of
Westchester, African-Americans are only slightly underrepresented. Regardless, the county settled to avoid the enormous costs of tangling in court with the Obama administration.HUD
has made its goals clear. Any community that accepts federal funds for
housing development will have to toe the line regarding minority
housing. "They are now on notice," said HUD Deputy Secretary Ron Sims. "That means in suburban areas, we're going to ask
that they provide that opportunity for choice so people are able to
enjoy what I call the fruits and benefits of an established
neighborhood." The Westchester case could provide a new tool for
fair-housing advocates fighting what they allege are discriminatory
policies by cities and suburbs nationwide. The settlement marked a
significant shift in federal efforts to enforce fair-housing law,
particularly in suburban areas.Indeed,
Sims has said that the Westchester settlement "can serve as a model for
building strong, inclusive sustainable communities in suburban areas
across the United States." Incidentally, Attorney General Holder's also criticized America for being "voluntarily segregated." So will we now be involuntarily integrated?A Wall Street Journal editorial ("Color-Coding the Suburbs") points out a peril of this brow-beating approach:

The
bigger concern, however, is the Obama Administration's intention to
promote housing policies that have a history of dividing communities and
creating racial tension. Integrated neighborhoods are an admirable
goal, but how you get there matters.

Social
engineering has long been a dream of what Jonah Goldberg would call
“Liberal Fascists” and they are having a field day in Obama’s America.

The
Democrats are masters at using Big Data (accumulated by means fair and
foul, but mostly the latter) to accumulate the very information needed
to move likely Democratic voters into districts where they can have the
most impact on behalf of the Democratic Party. There were good reasons
one of the first steps Barack Obama took upon becoming President was
trying to bring the Census Department under White House control (“it’s
called politics” as this Wall Street Journal column
by John Fund depicted the ploy; the Census combined with the IRS would
be powerful political tools for Democrats -- paid for by taxpayers).

The
problem with these “surplus voters” is that their votes are wasted in
reliably Democratic districts. Moving them into districts where they can
tip the balance and the district into the Democratic column would be a
masterstroke. This population transfer (dictators have a fetish for this
type of social engineering, by the way) would be done -- is being done
-- under the guise of “social justice,” “affordable housing,” and
“redressing past racial wrongs.” Those tactics and terms intimidate
protesters and stifle free speech.

Just ahead of Rosh
Hashana, negotiating teams were to meet in Cairo on Tuesday, marking the
beginning of indirect talks between Israel and Hamas on a long-term
truce in the Gaza Strip. This comes after the U.S. Senate passed
legislation last week that upgraded Israel's status to "major strategic
partner," a move that will enhance cooperation between the two countries
on regional issues.

This week, the Israeli
government approved a special NIS 1.3 billion ($360 million) aid package
for southern communities near the Gaza border. At the same time, Israel
is implementing a number of economic relief measures meant to ease the
lives of civilians in Gaza. It is no wonder that this is being done, as
Israel clearly distinguishes between Gaza's civilian population and
Hamas terrorist forces. This was demonstrated during Operation
Protective Edge, when Israel avoided, as much as possible, harming
innocent Palestinians civilians, while Hamas continuously tried, without
much success, to harm innocent Israeli civilians. This has been the
pattern of behavior by both sides ever since Hamas established itself as
a dominant terrorist organization.

Israel, in my opinion,
won the recent round of fighting with Hamas. Some commentators are
trying to propagate a misleading impression that Israel lost because it
did not decisively defeat Hamas. But this was not so. It is enough to
look at the pictures -- entire neighborhoods of Gaza were razed to the
ground. Around 2,200 Gazans were killed and many more were wounded. The
disappearance of Hamas leaders to underground bunkers during the
fighting was symbolic.

Israel, therefore,
enters the long-term truce takes with a huge advantage over the other
side and it must fully push for the following equation: "rehabilitation
for demilitarization" -- that is to say, the demilitarization of Gaza
must be a condition for any agreement, easement or reconstruction sought
by Hamas. Palestinian declarations of refusal to disarm will not be
accepted this time. Israel's demand for the demilitarization of Gaza has
received international support. The U.S. and Europe are watching the
Islamic State group with horror, and they understand that Israel's
demand is justified.

Moreover, European
nations, including Germany, Britain and France, have offered to set up a
force that would supervise the reconstruction and demilitarization of
Gaza. It should also be noted that, unlike during the Muslim Brotherhood
era in Egypt, when Mohammed Morsi's government expressed solidarity
with Hamas, Egypt is now ruled by Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who is revolted
by Hamas and its leaders. And the Saudi royal regime feels the same
way. On the other side stands Qatar, which will send millions of dollars
to Gaza for reconstruction, no matter what.

We should not fear
proposing creative solutions, such as Transportation Minister Yisrael
Katz's idea for a complete separation from Gaza and the creation of an
artificial island off the coast of Gaza on which an airport and seaport
would be built for the Palestinians. At the same time, we must insist on
protecting our interests. Residents of southern Israel know this better
than anyone, but all Israelis must come to understand it. This will
require a united Israeli front on the need for the demilitarization of
Gaza. Unfortunately, not everyone understands this now, and some are
trying to delegitimize the concept. Either way, if needed, we will again
fight a war in Gaza.

Thus, we are now being tested, and we will all bear the results, whatever they may be.

The aim of the current Iranian
regime is clearly to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and to retain
as much territory in Iraq as possible under Shia Islamist rule, whatever
the human cost. Those aims are also the reason Iran's regime is now
trying to intervene in Iraq.Iran will doubtless be demanding that any cooperation with the West
be compensated for by "concessions" permitting its nuclear weapons
program.Involving Iran in Iraq at this point will merely alienate any Sunni allies whose assistance is much needed to defeat IS.Many people inside Iran have alerted the U.S. Administration for over
two years about other industrial facilities being secretly built in
Iran and not declared to the International Atomic Energy. So far, all
intelligence from within Iran has been willfully ignored by the Obama
Administration.

As Hassan Rouhani, the supposed "moderate" Iran President, is soon to
visit New York to continue nuclear negotiations with the G5 + 1, it is
important to remember that the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran
continues to be among the largest funders and promoters of terrorism
worldwide, and remember as well the continuing human rights atrocities
that the regime has committed against its people since it came into
power in 1979.

The West should not accept any compromise on shutting down Iran's
nuclear-weapons program or allow Iran any opportunity to blackmail the
West into a compromise on it on the pretext of its "helping" to fight
the Islamic State [IS].

Iran's interference in Iraq has always been, and will always be,
negative. In the same way as IS, Iran's human rights atrocities against
its own people should, by themselves, disqualify the regime from any
part in negotiations either on Iraq or nuclear weapons capability.

If Iran's regime, with its unvarying track record of duplicity,
continues to be appeased by the Obama Administration and the G5 + 1, any
"deal" will only destabilize the Middle East -- and beyond -- even
further, as well as strengthening the very terrorist jihadist groups the
West is trying to counter.

The responsibility for disastrous results from any negotiation will
lie firmly at the feet of the G5 + 1, and particularly at the feet of
President Barack Obama personally, as another nail in the coffin of his
until-now failed foreign-policy legacy.

Iran's Involvement in Iraq

The "cooperation" of Iran's Shia regime in Iraq has resulted in large
swathes of the country being controlled by Iranian forces, especially
near their common border in Iraq's south. Many towns and cities, and
several provinces, such as Maysan Province, are under the total control
of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] and Quds Force. They
intimidate the legitimate refugees from Iran, approved by UNHCR, and
illegally force many back to Iran, where some have been executed purely
on the basis of their ethnicity. The poet Hashem Shaabani, 32, for
example, was executed after being forced back to Iran, and a teacher,
Mohammad Ali Amouri, has now received a life sentence
there. These men are both ethnic minorities from the Ahwazi Arab
community, persecuted solely because of their origins. The situation in
Iraq is so serious and lawless that even UNHCR workers have been
threatened and have fled. (The authors of this article have the complete
list of the names of the workers; they are, of course, frightened to
have them publicized.)

The problems in Iraq, which have recently led to the rise of the
Islamic State, began with the increasing Shia extremism, implemented by
Iraq's former President, Nouri al-Maliki, supported by the Iran. Qassem
Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC has been a key player
in Iraq since 2000, propping up the Iraqi Shia governments, as he has
also done for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. He is described as "the Iranian general 'secretly running' Iraq."

Further, since the increasing extremism of the Shias led to the rise
of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in the first place, it is
unlikely that the continuing interference of Iran will be perceived as
positive by those, mostly Sunnis, fighting IS. For the U.S. to advocate
Iran's involvement will also be seen, as pointed out by Mark Dubowitz, as a weakness by IS as well as by Khamenei's regime.

Islamic State in Syria and Iraq

For three years, Syrian civilians have been subjected to daily
slaughter and starvation by their own government under President Bashar
al-Assad, with firepower far superior to the resources of opposition
groups such as the Free Syrian Army [FSA], which had only rudimentary
weapons to defend their villages.

In 2009 the Iranian Shia regime acted with brutality, torture and
murder against millions of its own citizens went out into the streets to
demand democracy and an end to repression.

The Obama administration should have learned from its errors of
judgement, including, in Syria, ignoring its own "red line," even when
evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Assad was clear and
incontrovertible. Evidently it did not.

The aim of the current Iranian regime is clearly to acquire a nuclear
capability, and to retain as much territory in Iraq as possible under
Shia Islamist rule, whatever the human cost. That aim is reason it has
been supporting Assad with weapons and troops on the ground since the
beginning of the conflict in Syria.

Those aims are also the reason Iran's regime is now trying to
intervene in Iraq. The Iran regime is, of course, hoping that the
smokescreen it has cast -- to portray its leaders as "moderate" under
President Hassan Rouhani -- will persuade the West to believe, as U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently stated, that they have a "positive role to play" in any fight against the Islamic State.

For the U.S. Administration or anyone Western leaders actually to
believe such claims would be a grave mistake. Many Iranians are
stupefied by such statements. The Iranian regime has only a
self-interested role. It will doubtless be demanding that any
cooperation with the West be compensated by "concessions" permitting its nuclear weapons program.

Aid and arms should immediately be immediately given to the Free
Syrian Army in Syria and the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq; they must not be
diverted to the Iranian regime, which has murdered, raped and tortured
all who ask for democracy and human rights. Both IS and the Iranian
regime persecute religious minorities such as Christians, Bahai's and
Yazidis. They both commit atrocities such as amputations, floggings, and
forcing women to cover and convert, or face rape.

The West should not forget this barbarity. Not only will compromises
by the Obama Administration be regarded with contempt by the Supreme
Leader Ali Khamenei, the real leader of Iran; worse, involving Iran
further in Iraq at this point will merely alienate any Sunni allies
whose assistance is much needed to defeat IS.

Attempts to Portray a New "Moderate" Iran

The Iranian propaganda machine, which went into overdrive when Hassan
Rouhani replaced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president in 2013, would now
like the West to believe that its country is ruled by more "moderate"
leaders. Sadly this is not true. Not only have the promises made by Rouhani to the UNHCR never been kept, but executions, persecution and human rights violations have significantly increased.
Even those who report on these violations are increasingly in danger of
the growing reach of Iran's regime: Seyed Jamal Hosseini, a
UNHCR-registered refugee in Turkey, and one of the founders of the human
rights NGO, HRANA, was murdered in 2014.

The
smiling mask of Iran's regime: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (right)
meets with European Council President Herman Von Rompuy and EU High
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security policy, Catherine Ashton
at the United Nations in New York, September 26 , 2013. (Image source:
European Union)

The Iranian regime and its lobbyists, such as the National Iranian
American Council [NIAC] in the U.S., continue their attempts to
influence the Obama Administration on sanctions relief and nuclear
concessions. Time and again negotiations have been delayed, foiled and
extended by Iran, and concessions have been made by the G5 + 1,
including billions of dollars in sanctions relief -- for what?

Of course, to Khamenei, this burlesque just makes Obama and his
administration look weaker and weaker; further concessions will only
reinforce that perception.

Even more disturbing is that many people inside Iran have alerted the
U.S. Administration for more than two years about other industrial
facilities being secretly built in Iran, which have not been declared to
the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]. So far, all of the
intelligence provided from within Iran has been wilfully ignored by the
Obama Administration. At this point, it is not possible to believe that
this information is being ignored out of ignorance. That leaves, as
other possibilities, either the successful influence of Iran's lobbyists
or perhaps also commercial interests exerted by individuals or
companies eager to reap millions from doing business with Iran.

It is also revealing to note the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration.
Its presence may provide at least some explanation as to why Obama and
others consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even after three recent
beheadings, and the threats publicly to behead "random" Australians.

In a similar fashion, Iran's human rights atrocities are ignored by
the Obama administration, in favor of sitting down at the negotiating
table with the perpetrators, presumably to hand them the nuclear weapons
capability they are determined to acquire. Ex-CIA agent Clare Lopez has
written extensively about this issue.

Given that Iran currently holds in its prisons American citizens such
as U.S. Marine veteran Amir Hekmati, Christian Pastor Saeed Abedini, Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and former FBI agent Robert Levinson, as well thousands of innocent political prisoners,
it is noteworthy that the Obama administration has deliberately
separated all human rights issues from its nuclear negotiations.

This situation remains, despite the determined attempts of many
members of Congress, including Representatives Ed Royce and Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, as well as Senators Ted Cruz and Mark Kirk.

All calls by international human rights organizations and
non-governmental organizations for negotiations to be dependent the
cessation of all nuclear enrichment activity -- and on Iranian
assurances to release innocent political, religious and ethnic minority
prisoners -- have been ignored by both the G5 + 1 and Obama.

Instead, John Kerry on September 20, 2014 cordially invited Iran
to play a role in arresting the momentum of IS in Iraq and Syria:
"There is a role for nearly every country in the world in turning back
the militants and debunking their ideology, including Iran".The invitation is like asking the cat to guard the milk.

Gill Gillespie is Director of the Iranian Refugees
Action Network, and is based in the U.K. Shabnam Assadollahi is a Human
Rights activist and freelance journalist from Canada.Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4722/iran-axis-of-evil Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jihadi violence serves not only
to advance the terrorist's delusion of immortality, but also to add,
however perversely, an apparent and desperately needed erotic
satisfaction, using religion as the justification.Persuasive promises of immortality -- the desperate hope to live forever -- underlie virtually all major religions.Washington and Jerusalem should finally address what needs to be done
in addition to military remediation -- reinforcing efforts to convince
these terrorists that their expected martyrdom is ultimately just an
elaborate fiction.

Even after witnessing several beheadings and mass executions,
American and Western strategists dealing with Jihadist terror still miss
the key point. Whatever the particular terrorist group of the moment --
the Islamic State [IS or ISIS], Hamas, al-Qaeda, or some other kindred
terror organization -- the core struggle is never really about
territory, geography, or democracy. Always -- in Iraq, Afghanistan
Syria, or Gaza -- this enemy seeks something far more important and
compelling. In essence, Jihadi violence serves not only to advance the
terrorist's delusion of immortality, but also to add, however
perversely, an apparent and desperately needed erotic satisfaction,
using religion as the justification.

This core point is not difficult to understand. Persuasive promises
of immortality -- the desperate hope to live forever -- underlie
virtually all major religions. Yet this point remains neglected or
misunderstood in Washington, Jerusalem, and all other Western capitals.

The Jihadi terrorist claims to "love death," but in his or her mind,
that "suicide" is anything but final. Ironically, these Islamist
terrorists aim to conquer mortality by "killing themselves." The
would-be killer has been promised that death will represent just a
trivial and momentary inconvenience, a minor detour on just one more
glorious "martyr's" fiery trajectory toward a life everlasting, in
Paradise.

How can one ever hope to counter such a seductive promise? How can
any promise compete with the incomparable promise of immortality?

The answer has little or nothing to do with currently envisioned
applications of military force, whether as so-called "boots on the
ground," or as aerial bombardments.

If the problem of IS and other terrorist groups were just military,
the associated threat could be solved by military acts. But as Islamist
violence is expected to lead to promised martyrdom, the Jihadist
terrorist will not be deterred by any threats of military reprisal.

In both conception and execution, Jihadist terror has little to do
with land or politics or strategy. Rather, it is a routinely predictable
and repetitive expression of "sacredness through violence" --- taking
pleasure in inflicting harm on assorted "unbelievers," and then
justifying it as doctrinally-based religious belief. This expanding
network of carefully planned and staged homicides represents a current
form of religious fervor: religious sacrifice, a grotesque
practice that stems from pre-modern Islamic customs, which conveniently
link each blessed suicide's "martyrdom" with a selected victim's ritual
slaughter.

What about diplomatic solutions? As such sacrificial violence
expresses "death for Allah", there can never be any room for meaningful
negotiations. For America and the West, there will never be any
advantages to concessions or compromises, especially if they are
sequential.

There also should never be any expectations of reciprocity. If, for
example, Israel were to offer any further territorial surrenders to
Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, or Islamic Jihad, there could be no
plausible hope for any suitable quid pro quo. The surrenders
would be for nothing. In all likelihood, they will only be encouraged
and strengthened by repeated and one-sided territorial surrenders and
prisoner exchanges, such as the sorts of concessions made regularly (and
foolishly) by Israel.

The connection between Islamist sacrifice and political violence has a
long history, including links to ancient Greece. There, Plutarch's Sayings of Spartan Mothers revealed the model female parent as one who had reared her sons expressly for civic sacrifice.

The deepest roots of all Jihadist terror -- whether from Iraq, Syria,
"Palestine" or elsewhere -- originate, at least in part, from
contemporary cultures that enthusiastically embrace similar views of
sacrifice.

To us, in the West, these hopes may sound silly. Still, in this
particular sphere of world politics, there can be no greater power -- or
illusion -- than power over death.

Martyrdom operations, based upon a long-codified Muslim scripture,
have been associated with Jihad since the beginnings of Islam. Jubilant,
celebratory invocations for this twisted and
prohibited-by-international-law species of warfare can be found in the Koran and also in the Hadith, the presumptively authoritative acts and sayings of Muhammad.

For the U.S., Europe, and Israel, the security implications of any
doctrine fusing religion, erotic passion, and violence warrant a closer
look.

The implications for policy mean that our current and projected wars,
including the well-intentioned presidential plan to "degrade" and
"destroy" IS, are partially beside the point. Those responses are
directed more at the symptoms of a pathology than replacing the
underlying disease itself. Regrettably, they are unlikely to make any
substantial dent in Jihadist thinking. Any effect on the desire of
Jihadists to inflict harm may be only minimal.

A really good strategy needs to begin at the conceptual or
psychological level. It is actually the Jihadists' fear of death that
leads them to suicide, always in the hope that any short-term "dying" --
the vainglorious fantasy that "martyring" themselves -- will enable
them to live forever in Paradise, and as beloved heroes on Earth.

While Washington and Jerusalem seek "peace" -- an end to bloodshed --
as their overriding objective, these faith-driven adversaries appear to
see "peace" as merely a pretext. Their real objective is jihadist
victory over "unbelievers," on the blessed road to a global caliphate.

This asymmetric view puts us all at a grievous disadvantage. While
our Jihadist foes get ready for Paradise, by the slaughter of
"infidels," our own political leaders seem to remain blithely unaware of
-- or in denial about -- their enemies' fusion of sacredness with
violence.

Among more "normal" conflict scenarios, America, Europe and Israel
now need to consider mega-threats of both unconventional war and
unconventional terrorism. Faced with determined adversaries -- who are
not only willing to die, but who actively seek their own "deaths"
in order to live forever -- Washington and Jerusalem should finally
address the what needs to be done in addition to military remediation.

Sustained and selective armed force against IS and related Jihadist
targets is certainly necessary and appropriate. However, it is also
important to remind our leaders that force always needs to be combined
with reinforcing efforts to convince these terrorists that their
expected martyrdom is ultimately just an elaborate fiction.

Jihadists, in killing Americans, Israelis, and all other
"unbelievers," may not even intend to commit evil, so much as to do
themselves and Allah good -- and to do so with an absolute purity of
heart. In their view, waging Holy War can never be shameful; it can only
be heroic.

Going forward, our main task should be to systematically undermine
these fantasies and doctrinal "underpinnings." In conjunction with the
recommended nuanced persuasions of military firepower, it can be done.

Louis René Beres is a Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University.

by Rick MoranThe
Al-Nusra Front and their even more violent offshoot, the Khorasan, were
struck by US warplanes on Tuesday, expanding the US role in the Syrian
civil war by taking on 3 of the most effective forces fighting against
the Syrian government.

Russia
condemned all of the attacks in Syria, saying that the US should be
coordinating its missions with the Syrian government. Bottom line: the
two sides don't trust each other, but Russia will likely turn a blind
eye to the US bombing campaign in Syria.

As the United States launches airstrikes
against the Islamic State in Syria, Russia is condemning the move, and
hedging support for the attacks so long as they proceed without the
Syrian government’s consent.The Kremlin has no trouble with the intended target — like the United States, Russia wants the Islamic State destroyed and thinks it must be defeated in Syria and Iraq.But
as Syria’s unofficial patron and interlocutor in international
discussions about how to confront the Islamic State, Russia is insistent
that U.S. measures to target militants in Syria lack authority without
buy-in from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — a point Russian President
Vladimir Putin stressed to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon Tuesday.President
Obama is not directly coordinating strikes that are underway against
the Islamic State with Assad, although the Syrian army is fighting the
group, too.In the past, competing allegiances in the Syrian conflict have not blocked all cooperation. Last year, Obama and Putin brokered an agreement to
transfer Syria’s chemical weapons to international control, narrowly
avoiding U.S. airstrikes. But the near-complete erosion of trust between
the two countries since then — and pervasive suspicion about the United
States’ motives — complicates the chances of a similar breakthrough.“There’s
quite widespread suspicion here that the U.S. will start to bomb the
Islamic State but will end up bombing the Syrian army,” said Fyodor
Lukyanov, a Moscow-based analyst and head of an advisory panel to the
Kremlin on foreign and defense policy. “Russia is certainly not keen on
making the situation in the Middle East more difficult for Americans
than it is. But why help them? . . . It doesn’t seem to be in Russia’s
interest to get directly involved.”

It would certainly be an unprecedented situation; the US would be bombing both sides of a civil war.

Meanwhile, Nusra Front and Khorasan's plans for a terrorist attack on US interests were apparently disrupted. But who are these guys?

Islamic
State militants are seen as primarily focused on taking and holding
territory in Iraq and Syria, with attacks on the U.S. representing a
secondary goal. It severed its ties with al Qaeda's leadership in
Pakistan.Khorasan,
on the other hand, has followed the direction of al Qaeda leadership
and made strikes on U.S. targets its prime focus. Khorasan's plotting
against airliners to target the U.S. prompted the U.S. to step up
airline security over the summer, a U.S. official said.Khorasan was one of two main groups mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article last week discussing dangers in Syria emanating from groups other than Islamic State.In
addition to attacks on airliners, U.S. officials have said that
Khorasan has been setting up training camps in Syria for fighters who
hold Western passports. Officials said the intent is to specifically to
train militants who can avoid security checks, slip into the U.S. or
Europe and mount attacks.Khorasan's
leader, Muhsin al Fadhli, is a longtime al Qaeda operative with
long-running ties to the group's leadership in Pakistan. U.S.
intelligence reports identify him as being involved with terrorist
plotting out of Syria and Turkey that would target European countries,
according to a person briefed on the matter.Officials
said that neither Mr. Fadhli nor other militants leaders were directly
targeted on Tuesday in the first barrage of airstrikes.Mr.
Fadhli, believed to be in his 30s, is a senior al Qaeda facilitator and
financier who has long been sought by the U.S., which in 2012 offered a
$7 million reward for information leading to his capture.According
to the State Department, Mr. Fadhli spent years living in Iran, where
officials said he helped moved money and operatives for al Qaeda. Mr.
Fadhli also has an extensive network of Kuwaiti jihadist donors who have
sent money to Syria through Turkey, the State Department says.Khorasan
works closely with al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, known as the Nusra
Front, and many U.S. officials draw little distinction between the two,
saying both pose a more near-term threat to the U.S. and Europe.

It
is believed that Nusra has taken down Syrian aircraft with
shoulder-fired SAM's. Their threat to air craft in the region is real
and attacking ammunition storage facitlities is a good way to help
prevent that nightmare from occurring.